“If this banner was a blank banner, we wouldn’t be here,” said Gens. “If it said ‘Support Our Troops’ we probably wouldn’t be here. If it said ‘Black Lives Matter’ we wouldn’t be here, because this gives way to all sorts of selective enforcement.”
I see that “if things were different, they would be different” remains a standard for racists and their defenders.
I love how tame those examples are. None of them are targeting groups negatively, it’s a completely different “type” of banner. Even if it said “Support white people in new england”, it wouldn’t be going to court.
Except in this case, it is directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. When deciding a free speach case, the first part of the analysis is if the restriction is content neutral or not.
A content neutral rule is held to the standard of intermintent scrutiny, and is frequently upheld. A content based rule is held to the standard of strict scrutiny and almost always struck drown.
If the rule against signs on the overpass were enforced uniformly, then the white supremesists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But, at least based on the article, the rule is not being enforced uniformly at all; and is only being brought up now due to the content of the speech. That puts it squarly in the realm of strict scrutiny; giving the government a very uphill battle in court.
“White supremacist banners get taken down more often than other banners” isn’t actually evidence of unequal enforcement, because white supremacist banners almost certainly get reported to the cops immediately by a lot of people, whereas other banners are largely ignored if they aren’t offensive. Especially because it’s entirely legal to put up banners if you have a permit, so people have no reason to call the cops every time they see a banner.
Yes, but the article says this was for a REAL ID, which is a federal program to enhance state IDs. If the guy has a passport, that’s perfectly valid proof of citizenship, and he can just bring that to the DMV. Or, he should have a certificate or report of US birth abroad. If he doesn’t have any of those, he can request a certificate of citizenship.
Or he could just get a regular driver’s license without the REAL ID. Those aren’t going away any time soon and are perfectly valid for driving, no citizenship required.
I kind of get it, but maybe I also don’t fully understand what trans health care for kids is all about. (I’m not against it btw)
You can’t get a tattoo before you’re 18 because that’s (somewhat) permanent. Does trans care interfere with puberty in a way that’s irreversible?
I also realize what I just typed is probably comparing apples to oranges… maybe the people passing these laws are thinking the kids will grow up and change their minds - does that actually happen? (I doubt it, but just asking because I don’t know.)
Kids under 18 aren’t legally able to start hormone therapy or get surgery. The most they can get is puberty blockers and therapy. Ppl who complain about Trans kids changing their mind are full of shit. Everything a minor receives as Trans health care is reasonable, safe, and reversible
That’s what I was wondering too and maybe there needs to be more information on what exactly trans care for kids is all about. I honestly have no clue.
Maybe that’s a good reason why this shouldn’t be a political issue but a medical one decided by experts in the field instead of politicians with influence from the general public.
No reasoning should be necessary to keep government/politicians/anyone else out of people’s private lives - including (and ESPECIALLY) health care decisions.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Puberty itself is full of irreversible changes. Having puberty blockers available to trans youth is important to prevent their bodies from making changes they don’t want, and is reversible later.
In my field of work this is relatively important. For one thing there are company secrets that give the company an edge temporarily. Those things you generally don’t patent because you don’t want to disclose them yet.
So if you could just find another job and tell others these things, then yeah that could hurt a company. Usually we keep those things a just need to know level. So the guy who orders parts or the lady who does budgets don’t get to know details.
But then on the overall it hurts us workers because we would like to be paid more or get a promotion or a new higher income somewhere else. But we are trapped. But I think this sort of thing is very niche. I mean, I literally spent 3 years of my life trying to find another team member with the right engineering background.
And it also hurts the country overall. People who know the technology are few and far apart so when we loose one to old age or disease so goes all that knowledge.
I for one try to grow engineers. I find those who are open minded and hungry for new ideas and then I bring them to the water. If the donkey drinks, then my job is done. It’s really hard to see one of my guys just leave. It’s years of my life and effort gone. But for them, it’s spin-off open season. Or maybe they teach others the principles we developed together. And this in turn makes better and more engineers. Putting a limit on what we can say or do just sucks balls.
And they do. I got no complaints from that end of the bargain myself. But It depends on when you start. Like if you start at a point when the company is not doing well, you are probably not going to get a good bump. But then you don’t know what others make so it’s mostly going to be compared with rumors from the net as to how much you might ask for. Anyway if you join in a bad year you get stuck with that pay while new people probably get a lot higher when profitability comes back. The owners have no incentive to pay you more just because they are making more.
There’s a new law here in Washington State where the new positions must state the pay range. But then you can have a rate range that is far too large to be of any comparison or gage use.
The reason I would want freedom from these laws is so that I can get a good job doing what I like. Chasing a project from company to company just to learn more about it for example is not uncommon.
This is so counter-productive because these border immigrant shelters fill an important niche working with government services. There is no government agency with the resources on the border to house all of the people who enter the country to legally seek asylum.
They have to stay somewhere while they are being processed before traveling on to the interior. They also need logistical support in making their way through both the legal system and the US transit system to get to their destination. Border shelters do all that, allowing the government to do its job.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.